Nothing happened to that idea -- that was never the idea.

The original idea behind the intermission was just to leave the recording going on our conversations in between movies, which would sometimes be about movies but sometimes just about whatever someone found funny on Twitter that week or whatever, or expanding on a point or an anecdote that didn't really have a place in the commentary where it came up but is worth talking about. It's meant to be free-form and whatever we end up talking about for 30 minutes, then we're done -- kind of like Kevin Smith's Smodcast.

The 30 minute hard-out is because we explicitly didn't want the conversation to go on and on until we decided it had ended, because if we did that we'd probably never find a good stopping point. As FixedR6 says, continuing the conversation is what the forum is for.

For posterity:

This just will not get less funny.

The Passion of the Christ > Mel Gibson
Conspiracy Theory > Julia Roberts
Flatliners > Kevin Bacon

Christopher Hitchens actually makes the opposite point when people claim humans need God's law to keep them in line: human civilization was around for thousands of years before the Ten Commandments were ever written down, do you really think it somehow survived all that time with everyone wildly killing, fucking, and robbing each other, and never thinking better of it until some Authority handed down a pithy set of rules?

We humans -- those of us without significant developmental disorders, at least -- do have an innate sense of correct behavior that doesn't have to be told to us. Cooperative behavior to some degree is hardwired into us by selective breeding, the same way that many breeds of dog are hardwired to be loyal and protective of humans. In our wild past, humans survived better in groups than alone. People who couldn't play nice in groups passed on fewer of their genes than those that could, and it's only very recently, all things considered, that we moved out of that environment. Not nearly long enough for behavioral evolution to have taken us noticeably in any other direction (American Conservatives to the contrary).

Over a period of about 150,000 years, without having any idea we were doing it, we basically domesticated ourselves.

If it remains primarily about how important it is for a girl to have a boyfriend in place of a personality, then TWILIGHT is a problem whether it's vampires or not.

I don't know if you're a true Scotsman, but that certainly is a hell of a straw man you're whacking at there.

The line, for me, is when their false beliefs start to impact my life. And when they do, if their actions are based on an absurd belief, I'm going to say so. And if someone else comes by and says "Hey, I'm not an asshole but I believe the same thing that asshole does that you say is wrong," I'll say "It's great that you're not an asshole, but he's wrong and so are you."

Lady with a knit sweater who thinks grey is red? Fine, whatever. Lady with a bully pulpit who thinks gays should be put to death because the Bible says so? Not fine. Lady who believes the Bible but doesn't have a problem with gays? That's cool of her, but it doesn't make the Bible truer, and isn't a good reason not to object to it when the other lady starts trying to pass laws.

I don't agree with this. I don't have to know all the nuances of the Silmarillion before I can decide I don't believe that it's true, nor should I have to memorize the five pillars of Islam in order to say I think it's all hooey. I don't think you need a lot of information to reject a concept -- but you should need a lot of information before you accept it.

Like you say, the main reason I know a good amount about Christian mythology is because when I was losing my faith I did a lot of research to try to find something to cling to. But I don't think it's invalid for an atheist to not believe it simply because they never saw any good reason to.

I haven't been vastly bothered by the apparent lack of content because I rarely go looking for movies specifically; I mostly browse what they do have and select what I want from there. If I need a movie that's not on Netflix, I'll check iTunes. I never thought to check Amazon's streaming thing, mainly because I forgot it existed.

After Netflix announced the Qwikster split -- like, within the hour -- I cancelled my disc subscription through them and went to streaming only, and re-started my old Blockbuster account. If I'm going to have to maintain a separate queue and account anyway, I might as well go with the one that has movies available a month earlier than Qwiknetsterflix does/will. But it's worthwhile to me to keep Netflix's streaming service, because I can get to it through my Apple TV, iPad, and PS3, whereas the others have me chained to my computer chair. For now. Once I can get these other services on my TV, I'll re-evaluate.

You're probably right, the top of the second act is too early. Probably better at the midpoint instead, and yes, the depressing and non-fanciful "Dark Night of the Soul" would be deliberate, leading into the explosion of imagination that would comprise the third act.

You're going after a straw man here, maul. If you listen to a shortly pre-AVATAR commentary -- I believe it was GHOSTBUSTERS 2 -- we all go on record as not caring a whit that AVATAR even from the trailers looked like POCAHONTAS with blue kitties. In fact, we defended it specifically on the grounds that there's nothing wrong with retelling a classic story in a new way. That's not the problem any of us have with AVATAR, the problem is that it's superficial and dull once you look past the eye candy.

Just because he likes the idea of a remake/retelling doesn't mean that he has to like every movie that does it. You're trying to nail him on an inconsistency in his position that doesn't exist.

EDIT: Also, Zarban, the first idea you mention could make a fine dark comedy/social satire a la AMERICAN PSYCHO. It wouldn't work as a wacky, lighthearted romp, but my whole point is that the success of an idea hinges on execution.

The other three are undeveloped, is all. The old ladies have to make the perfect embroidery pattern... in order to...? Figure out a decent ending to that sentence and you've got a solid movie (or don't, and you've got WANTED). Swap "plastic bag" for "mud puddle" and you're on your way to developing AMERICAN BEAUTY. Swap "monotonous rural life" for "strict parents" and you've got the broad strokes of WIZARD OF OZ.

Or were you doing that on purpose?

I'd never heard the term "script-remake" before, so I didn't know what you were talking about. What you're calling script remakes are pretty much never done -- PSYCHO is the only one I can think of and that didn't fly -- so I was taking it as a given that if we were talking about a remake, we were talking about going back to the drawing board, developing a new perspective on the material and writing a new script.

If there is a point to remaking a film at all, in my view, it's to do something different and take fuller advantage of certain opportunities, which is what I was asking about in the initial post.

Yeah, go ahead. Take a shot every time I say it. I dare you.